- (1.) N. K. Mehrotra, J. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Gautam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. B. Yadav, Brief Holder appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is employed on the post of "mali" on daily wage basis since 1992. She claims regular pay scale prescribed for the post of regular Mali. THE reliefs claimed in the petition are as follow: " (i) issue a writ or mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to forthwith payment of minimum pay scale since then when they are paying other junior persons of the petitioner on the post of Mali and till such time the regularisation of the petitioner are not done, the opposite parties may be commanded to provide the regular time scale to the petitioner. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give artificial break in the services of the petitioner and the petitioner be allowed to continue in service with all the service benefits available to them. (iii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case. " In view of the aforesaid reliefs, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner is pursuing this writ petition only for getting the pay at the minimum slab of the regular pay scale permissible for the post of "mali" (Gardener) and the petitioner is not seeking regularisation under the Regularisation Rules through this writ petition. Admittedly, the post of Mali is governed by the Rules known as U. P. Industry and Fruits Utilisation Group-D Employees Services Rules, 1986. The prescribed qualification for the post of Mali (Gardener) under this Rules if Class V/trained Mali. There is no case in the petition that the petitioner is either having the certificate of passing Class V or she is a trained Mali. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post of Mali. The claim of the petitioner for the minimum pay scale prescribed for regular Mali is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In the State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, 2002 (2) LBESR 465 (SC) : 2002 (94) FLR 851 (SC), it has been held by the Supreme Court that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right. It is only a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. The pay parity cannot be made merely on the basis of designation. In the State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tilak Raj & Ors. , 2003 (98) FLR 599 : 2003 (8) AIC 19, it has been held by the Supreme Court that daily-wage workers hold no post. A scale of pay being attached to a definite post, the daily workers are not entitled to claim for equal pay for equal work on parity with the regular employees. However, the daily workers were held entitled to minimum wages (not regular pay scale) as prescribed by the State Government. It is for the claimant to establish the complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay-scales and others who have already earned such pay scales. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that she is not getting the minimum wage prescribed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner is claiming the pay at minimum slab on regular pay scale prescribed for regular Mali, for the post for which she does not possess the minimum qualification. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred that in a number of writ petitions, the persons junior to the petitioner are getting the minimum of pay scale on the basis of interim orders but the interim orders are not binding precedents. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;